Friday, August 03, 2012

Same-sex marriage validation from an unlikely source

Recently published academic research examining the long-term fate of children whose parents have had homosexual relationships lends support to the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage will be good for kids.

What? A rebuttal to the July 2012, New Family Structures Study that identified problems suffered by children with gay parents and is currently being trumpeted as a game changer by opponents of same-sex marriage?

Nope. Same research.

The author of the paper, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus, set out to test the claim often made by proponents of gay marriage that there’s no meaningful difference between children reared by same-sex couples and children reared by male-female couples.

He analyzed nearly 3,000 questionnaires filled out by adults ages 18 to 39, and the one-sentence summary of his conclusion — children whose parents had same-sex relationships fared worse by many statistical measures than children whose male-female parents were married — touched off end-zone dancing on the right, where gay marriage is often ominously portrayed as a dangerous social experiment that imperils our nation’s youth.

But take a closer look at that one-sentence summary. It reveals that the comparison is between children whose mother or father at some point had a gay or lesbian relationship of unspecified duration and children who grew up in a conventional, intact home.

No surprise there.

It’s hardly a news flash that kids from stable, two-parent households are statistically more likely to thrive and be happy than children from disordered or fraught households where, say, one parent or the other swaps out for a same-sex partner. And this would be particularly true for kids who came of age at a time when homosexuality was less accepted than it is today.

So why didn’t Regnerus make an apples-to-apples comparison of children reared from infancy by stable, committed lesbian or gay couples and children reared from infancy by stable, committed straight couples?

He tried. But as he explained to Slate’s William Saletan in an online dialogue about his research, even when making a first pass through some 15,000 random initial contacts, he and his team identified “only two cases in which mom and her partner were together for 18 years … only six cases (for) 10 or more years, and 18 cases for five years.”

Not that gay relationships are inherently unstable, but that such circumstances were statistically rare in the years he was looking at.

He noted to Saletan that the longer the children were in these lesbian-mother families, “the better the kids’ outcomes appear,” but that the sample size was far too small for anything other than anecdotal research. So he broadened the category of “gay parents” to include all who’d had even a brief romantic fling with someone of the same sex.

And, yes, the children of such people, when they become adults, are statistically more likely to suffer depression, use illegal drugs, be unemployed, cheat on their partners and so on.

But that could be explained by “a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families — including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses.”

Says who?

Regnerus.

Even though he’s a social conservative and his research was funded primarily by a right-wing think tank, he allows in interviews that the major takeaway from his study ought to be not that gay people are worse parents than straight people, but that “family instability — whatever the sources — is often a top culprit in predicting dysfunction in the lives of children.”

Just so. And, hmmm, let’s think … what institution, what cultural tradition do we have that encourages and promotes family stability? That creates legal bonds to match the social and romantic bonds that help parents stay together?

Well that would be marriage, of course. So the logical implication of the New Family Structures Study, given that same-sex couples will continue to adopt or have children through artificial insemination, is that kids will benefit if such parents are granted access to this stabilizing institution.

“It’s possible,” said Regnerus, when challenged with this observation in an online Q-and-A.

Actually, if he believes his own numbers, it’s more than possible. It’s a near certainty.

Comments

Completely OT, EZ, but do you ever look at the ads that pop up at the right side of your blog, right below the "About ..." section? Frequently, there's one from Rand Paul, soliciting signatures for an online petition that Obama will fear. There's also one for the HoJo Motor, which is a complete and utter hoax. Isn't there any filtering of what the Trib will run, and where it will run it?

ZORN REPLY -- I don't pay that much attention, but if, when you see something like this, you'd send me an email I'd be happy to forward it to the digital gurus who can take (and have in the past taken) corrective steps.

How many studies do we need to do, to realize that stability in children and marriages only comes with sacrificial attitude for the love and caring of his wife and children, loving your neighbor, identifying wrong or right and being rooted in unchanging fundamental moral values. As each generation changes its moral values to fit ones ideological moods, society will degrade. If each generation is forced to adopt to ones selfish needs, where is the stability in that?
Love one another, be respectful, kind and yes be willing to say, "No, that is wrong or yes, great job", and don't waiver in established values that once prospered and raised responsible human beings.

Using your logic BillM, you should also be lobbying for elimination of No-Fault Divorce. Thats a huge part of the problem. Heterosexuals constantly bedhopping and changing their "Friends with Benefits" and then claim that their "God" approves of all this!

What is it with the the Heterosexual Agenda and the fact that they force others to adopt to their selfish, sexual needs? Where is the stability in that for our children?

BillM - I have friends who are a gay couple raising two children and they would agree with you completely. They sacrifice everything for each other and the children (except that neither refers to the other as his "wife" - they're both husbands). They have worked very hard to provide a stable, moral life for their children, especially their daughter whom they adopted after she was abandoned by her mother. Their son is the nicest, sweetest, most respectful and delightful six-year-old I've ever met (and he's good friends with my daughter). Their daughter is finally starting to settle down and blossom into a spirited and joyful little girl. They have prospered greatly in the values they've taught their children - love, acceptance, openness, etc. - and they are raising two very responible young people.

Nicely penned Dienne. You may not believe this, but the Libertarian-bent fella writing this was a "theater guy" in college. It's posts like your latest that allow closed-minded people to open their minds, even a little bit, to the other possibilities. Religion and politics (and this topic invokes both) polarize so much because they invoke gut feelings we have a hard time overcoming. And then respect for the "other side" goes out the window. But when we lose our feelings of repulsion and anger toward a polarizing topic, we discover a whole world of ideas we had never thought about before. Works well on any side of a debate, but especially debates like this.

And I assume this couple has done everything you described without officially being recognized as "married," correct? Similarly, I know some single moms who are raising great kids, obviously without the "benefit" of a marriage license.

Lets just get it over with...provide civil unions to all, reserve marriage for religious ceremonies, and move on to serious issues.

"Not that gay relationships are inherently unstable, but that such circumstances were statistically rare in the years he was looking at."

Hmmm.....I'd like to see a study showing how stable gay relationships are. If they're more stable than straight relationships then this would be good ammo for the community to use to push gay marriage.

I suspect I'm not the first to think of this, which leads me to believe the stats don't help the cause.

ZORN REPLY -- It's awfully hard to study that independent of the social norms that encourage/reward heterosexual stability while not doing so for homosexual stability. You haven't ever said much about yourself, Lexi, but now we know you're not a social scientist.

I'm shocked this hasn't been "proven" time and time again, either. But I don't think its because the stability issue is not true, I suspect if we start going down than path "proving" things, more and more stuff will have to be "proven" in order to be accepted first. And no one needs that.

ZORN REPLY -- It's awfully hard to study that independent of the social norms that encourage/reward heterosexual stability while not doing so for homosexual stability.

BRIAN REPLY -- But perhaps that is part of nature's way of discouraging certain relationships? This sounds like the same point raised in your column...that we can't really gauge the effectiveness of homosexual parents because of the family instability caused by external negative influences. Now you're saying we can't say gay relationships are inherently unstable (if in fact studies were to say they are) because the instability is due to societal discrimination forces.

ZORN REPLY -- Social opprobrium as part of "nature's way"? That's a new one. I do think, though, that we'll be able to study this topic far better in a few years when places where gay marriage is legal start producing adult children reared from infancy by gay couples. My guess is that the sexual orientation of the parents will be a statistically insignificant factor in measuring outcomes. But even if my guess is wrong, there is NO tradition at all of allowing or disallowing people to marry based on the likely statistical outcomes for their theoretical children. If this were so, you could make a far better argument for not allowing low-income or uneducated people to marry.

I'm surprised that you used the institution of marriage as the key to hold those relationships together, when in fact it was the defiance of that institution which caused the problem in the first place.

Straight or gay, it doesn't matter, but what does matter is staying committed to one another, through good times or bad. Are you suggesting that the institution of marriage is going to make us better partners, regardless of our orientation?

ZORN REPLY -- No, I'm saying that the institution of legal marriage is inherently stabilizing with its promise of security (signed in pencil all too often, I know) and its social recognition... that it creates a positive feedback loop.

Civil unions also have a negative social impact, one of the reasons Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional. You won't be able to measure the true effects of gay families until they're completely equal to heterosexual families. Studies should be confined to states where this equality exists.

There is no such thing as children of homosexual parents. Every human has two parents of the opposite gender (whether or not one or both are actively involved in the upbringing.)

Homosexual couples cannot reproduce with one another, so it is disingenuous (at best) to repeat phrases like "homosexual parents", as if the general population is too stupid to realize what your agenda is.

@Dienne - the terms "stepparents", "adoptive parents" and "foster parents" have inherent specificity and are self-explanatory.

There is nothing disingenuous about the term "adoptive parents", as anyone with an elementary knowledge of the English language will immediately know that those are not the biological parents of the child.

That is not the case with terms like "homosexual parents", which is a scientific impossibility. No child is the product of two men or two women, which is what that phrase implies.

PaulY - Until and unless we reach a point where every child is wanted, loved and able to be cared for by both of the male and female biological parents who brought him or her into the world, your argument is specious, because there will always be alternate parenting arrangements, some of which will involve homosexual parents. A real parent is one who is actually raising a child, regardless of biological relationship thereto. A homosexual couple who adopt a child (or utilize any of the numerous other ways homosexual couples have children) are no more or less valid parents than a heterosexual parents who adopt a child.

@Wendy - that was the premise of my original post. These word games are getting ridiculous. But the word games being played by the people using impossible phrases like "children of homosexual parents" have a negative effect on both logic and the English language.

Unwanted children and artificial methods of conception have EVERYTHING to do with your original comment. The FACT is that children come into this world in all sorts of ways every day, some wanted, others not. Many children end up being raised in environments other than with both of their biological parents - single parents, step-parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, aunts/uncles, group homes, you name it. What constitutes a "parent" is not the biological relationship with the child or the gender of the parent(s), but the role the parent (biological, adoptive, step, foster or otherwise) plays in the child's life. You may not like it, but homosexual parents can be and are just as good of parents as any of the above parents, and, in fact, it's much better to have two homosexual parents than one single parent.

I'm sorry that you are so blinded by your hatred of homosexuality to see that gay and lesbian partners can (and do!) provide stable, loving environments for children and produce healthy, happy, NORMAL children every day. I don't know exactly what your definition of "normal" is, but I'd take a happy and loving gay/lesbian home over an abusive/unstable heterosexual home any day of the week. And I know that children growing up in loving gay/lesbian homes would agree.

---"It is also incorrect to call both of them "parents" - at best, one is a parent, the other is not the biological parent at all."

That applies to every non-biological parenting relationship. Heterosexual adoptive parents are not biological parents, so let's not call them parents either. Same with step-parents, etc.

ZORN REPLY -- PaulY is getting clobbered in this discussion, his obsession with terminology is transparently hateful. Hard to believe some of the more reasonable anti-SSM folks haven't jumped in to tell him to explore another line of argument. Maybe they can't think of one.

@Dienne - in every case of a homosexual couple rearing a child, there is at least one real parent who is not involved in the rearing of that child. And multiple scientific studies have proven that children benefit in different ways from their relationship with both a mother and a father.

Fine, then let's pass a law that no non-biological parent can ever call him/herself a parent. Adoptive parents always have to be referred to as adoptive parents. Step-parents always have to be referred to as step-parents. Etc. This applies to all heterosexual and homosexual non-biological caregivers. Deal?

@Dienne - another logical Non Sequitur is that children of unstable/destructive heterosexual relationships are unhappy. That is a given. I never said that children of unhappy hetero relationships are in a healthy environment. It does not necessarily follow, then, that they are better off in a "happy" homosexual household. Which is the topic of the study under question here.

"in every case of a single parent, step parent or adoptive parent(s) rearing a child, there is at least one real parent who is not involved in the rearing of that child. And multiple scientific studies have proven that children benefit in different ways from their relationship with both a mother and a father."

So, the conclusion is, what? Should we outlaw single, step and adoptive parenting?

lexi, Brian -- let's see how long straight marriages would last if they were subjected to all the following:

Legally getting fired if someone found out you were straight or married.

Families rejecting you if they found out you were straight or married.

Your church rejecting you if members found out you were straight or married.

Arrest, jail, or prison -- even up to the death penalty -- if your government found out you were straight or married. (This happened in the USA until recently, but is happening elsewhere.)

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Straight marriage is supported by every segment of society, government, police, and law. It has everything going for it -- and yet it has a more than 50% failure rate. Why would anyone be surprised that same sex relationships might have difficulty enduring in the face of such overwhelming obstacles?

"children of homosexual parents" have a negative effect on both logic and the English language.

Only by those whom have a negative view of homosexuality. You focus exclusively on homosexual parents, saying only one can be the true parent, bad. You then claim adoptive heterosexual parents, neither of which is the biological parent, would provide a more normal environment, good. Parenting does not depend on genetic ties to be successful with a man and woman? I think we see what you're really saying.

Again with the accusations of non sequitors, master of talking in circles. The fact is that it is not always a choice between children being in a homosexual family vs. being in a happy, loving, stable heterosexual family. Again, if it were - if every child were born to biological parents who loved, wanted and were able to care for him/her, this discussion would be moot. The fact is that many children are born into abusive, neglectful or otherwise highly dysfunctional families (and/or to parent(s) who abandon them altogether). Some of these children end up with stable gay/lesbian families. Are you trying to say that they would be better off in their abusive/neglectful heterosexual "families"?

@Dienne: The fact is that many children are born into abusive, neglectful or otherwise highly dysfunctional families (and/or to parent(s) who abandon them altogether). Some of these children end up with stable gay/lesbian families. Are you trying to say that they would be better off in their abusive/neglectful heterosexual "families"?

I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, but this is another case of non sequitor. It does not follow from my original post. I never claimed that children in abusive situations with their biological parents are better off than being in foster homes, or being in the care of the state, or (even) in the care of a same-sex couple.

Ideally, I think we can agree that children would be better off with BOTH of their biological parents in a happy, healthy household. I agree with you, it would be wonderful if that could be the case 100% of the time. That would be the ideal.

It does not logically follow, then, that because a child is not part of that ideal, that they necessarily would be better off in a "stable" homosexual household. That is the topic of this study, not my topic.

--Dienne - I'm asking you, what is your conclusion? So two gay men or two lesbian women cannot both be biological parents of the same child. So what? What's your conclusion?

PaulY - my conclusion can be found in my original post. Repeated below:

"There is no such thing as children of homosexual parents. Every human has two parents of the opposite gender (whether or not one or both are actively involved in the upbringing.)

Homosexual couples cannot reproduce with one another, so it is disingenuous (at best) to repeat phrases like "homosexual parents", as if the general population is too stupid to realize what your agenda is."

pauly: "Homosexual couples cannot reproduce with one another, so it is disingenuous (at best) to repeat phrases like "homosexual parents", as if the general population is too stupid to realize what your agenda is."

I have given you an example of "homosexual parents" above, so now what excuse are you going to use.

Woo hoo! We've arrived back at the starting point! Ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated until the ride has come to a complete stop.

Of course, it would have been nice if, somewhere along the way, PaulY had told us why the hell we should care about the obvious fact that homosexual parents can't both be biological parents, since we don't seem to care about any other combination of non-biological parents.

Dienne: Also, as a verb, it contains this definition: to be or act as a parent of; nurture; bring up; raise; rear.

PaulY: I am not referring to the verb, but the noun. In the case of a child in the care of the state or an orphanage, many people may be involved in the nurturing and care of that child, but we do not call them "parents."

Richard S: I have gay a friend that donated his sperm to a lesbian he knows so that the lesbian could have a child with her partner. You are wrong that the term "homosexual parents" do not exist. In this case the child's bilogical parents are both gay.

PaulY: I never said both biological parents cannot be gay. I said two people in a gay relationship cannot *both* be the parents of the child. Unless you've found a way to make a sperm fertilize another sperm, or an egg fertilize another egg. Now that would be news!

Wendy: Basically, PaulY is following the Catholic argument that homosexual couples can't sexually reproduce, as such can't be married or be called parents.

PaulY: who said anything about a Catholic argument? First off, I am not a Catholic. Secondly, I've used nothing but basic biology, logic and English grammar to present my point. Which was a very narrow and specific point, until I was presented with numerous logical fallacies, including your own.

PaulY: I never said both biological parents cannot be gay. I said two people in a gay relationship cannot *both* be the parents of the child.

Richard S: So then what is your exact definition of parent then?

PaulY: My exact definition of parent is a biological parent. Anyone else involved in the parenting process of that child can be referred to as a "step" parent, or an "adoptive" parent. Which is a normal, established precedent even in hetero relationships.

ZORN REPLY -- Sheesh! That's it. I plan to delete all further comments that engage in this completely pointless terminological dispute.

Way to go Zorn, censorship is the only real way to deal with people who disagree with your liberal bias!

ZORN REPLY -- You'll note that I'm deleting every comment related to this nonsensical debate over what is and isn't a "parent," including comments from those who agree with me that your perserveration here is trollish and hateful.
Move on!

@Dienne - I'm not really surprised, but perhaps a bit hurt and disappointed at being called "hateful" and a "troll". I hope you didn't get a sense that I am "hateful." You are the one person I've been discussing most with today (I though, civilly)

So Pauly, what difference does it make whether the child is being raised by the biological parents or a different set of parents. Why does that matter as long as the child is being raised in a stable loving environment?

Thanks Zorn, instead of trying to get people to discuss this topic, you have managed to stifle it.

ZORN REPLY -- Oh, Richard, please, go back and review the bidding. This "discussion" had turned into a sandbox spat over the precise definition of the word "parent," which has NOTHING to do with point of the column. How much "is too!" "is not!" "is too!" "is not!" are we supposed to take?

Now is it going to devolve into a spat about whether cutting off a pointless and tedious discussion amounts to censorship?

Please. Let's talk about the subject at hand: Why allowing gays to marry would be good for the children they will inevitably be raising. Or why it wouldn't be....

Yikes. Eric, this column was excellent. And sorry to revisit the tit-for-tat, but it's worth pointing out that the child welfare community generally frowns upon the phrase "adoptive parent" (or "adopted child" for that matter). The guide that I use states, "It isn't wrong to say that you're an 'adoptive' parent, but extended use by you or others (especially in front of your children), continues to qualify your parental status." That holds for both gay and straight people who adopt.

ZORN REPLY -- Oh, Richard, please, go back and review the bidding. This "discussion" had turned into a sandbox spat over the precise definition of the word "parent," which has NOTHING to do with point of the column. How much "is too!" "is not!" "is too!" "is not!" are we supposed to take?

And if a person's argument is based on how they define a word, don't you want to know how they define that word and what it means to them.

I am guessing that the word "marriage" is another word that has a precise definition.

If you felt the posts were getting to be unproductive a simple warning would have sufficed.

ZORN REPLY -- I did give a warning, go back and look. And no, the diversion into biology had nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one thinks or claims that gay couples can biologically reproduce (though I wouldn't put it past scientists to figure out in the next 100 years or so how to create an embryo that has the DNA of both parents of the same sex).

Seriously, I wasn't objecting so much to the presence of the ads (I can ignore tham) as to the subject matter. Rand Paul isn't likely to find much of an audience among the frequenters, at least those of a leftish persuasion, of this blog, and the HoJo Motor is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, useful only for separating the gullible from their money.

Another factor that I don't see discussed regarding this study is the fact that in the early days of gay couples adopting, they tended to adopt children that no one wanted -- AIDS babies, crack babies, abandoned and deformed babies. In other words, they adopted children that already had very serious problems. Was this taken into account?

Dienne: I loved your comment way up high and should have responded yesterday. I hope you see this! This is just curiosity -- you've made that family seem so real to me that I feel somewhat invested in them now. I hope their little girl continues to thrive, as I think abandonment is such a monumental thing to overcome. A friend is now married to her second husband. She had a daughter with the first and he essentially had no contact with her even though they lived (he's dead now) in the same small town! Second husband is her dad and has been, but my friend worried for years that Katie would think, "what's so awful about me that my dad left me."

So I'm worried about the little girl, though you've made it sound like she's slowly but surely becoming rooted.

The second question is just one I think of upon occasion: what do the kids call the dads? Is one "Dad" and the other "Papa?" Such a stupid thing to ask. Again, I'm just curious.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.